User talk:Kipepea

Welcome!

Hello, Kipepea! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! --Animalparty! (talk) 18:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Proposed deletion of Hans-Joachim Schäfers

The article Hans-Joachim Schäfers has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Calton | Talk 14:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Portrait of H.-J. Schäfer will be complemented by a a separate new article dealing with "Aortic reconstruction", referring to the work of Hans-Joachim Schäfers and linked to his article. This article has already been written in the German Wikipedia (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aortenklappenrekonstruktion) . The new article will resolve the reference/"orphan"topic. Please give one month time to translate this article into english Wikipedia. Thanks Kipepea (talk) 19:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References citing and adopting Schäfer's work are added in the article today. Kipepea (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies

I've noticed that you've created/are creating a slew of German medical biographies. Thank you for the effort, but my (brief) survey shows some obvious shortcomings.

Notability: subjects of articles must show show evidence of notability in the wider world. Professional accomplishments are not sufficient, but subjects must meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.

"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.^[1]

Sources: all articles -- and most especially biographies -- require reliable sources which are independent of the subject to attest to their factuality. I found many citations to works BY the subjects, but nothing ABOUT subjects. Again, from Wikipedia's general notability guidelines:

"Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.'
"Sources"^[2] should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected.^[3] Sources do not have to be available online or written in English. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.
"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.^[4]

References

^ Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.
^ Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.
^ Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.
^ Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

--Calton | Talk 14:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aortic valve repair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annulus. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Mosaad Megahed for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mosaad Megahed is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mosaad Megahed until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slashme (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello! Thank you for your recent contributions to Siroos Mirzaei. I did have one note for you. I am working on a maintenance project to clean up Category:Pages using infoboxes with thumbnail images. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks!! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relation to subject matter

You are required to declare your relation to the subject matter you write about. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once we get proper disclosure you can return to editing. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kipepea (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Doc James, dear collegues, I’m really sorry, that my work in Wikipedia gives the impression of not editing according to the appropriate rules. I’m an engaged female master student in Vienna, Austria. During the last two years I was working hard to understand the Wikipedia policies which is not always easy matter. My goal in Wikipedia is to make living scientists better known, the people behind fundamental performances in our society. I have written a range of portraits of medicines, biologists and other scientists. Doing so I am always aware of writing from a neutral point of view which I know of one of Wikipedia’s highest priorities! The complaint that I uploaded pictures of persons after having published portraits of them, should not create the false appearance, that I know people personally. In a few cases after having published an article I asked the person per email weather he or she wishes to deliver a picture and some did so. I avoid conflicts of interest as articles are not overweighted in what these people performed in their discipline. All research results are cited by journal or book publications. I also strongly act in compliance with the WIkipedia policy on living persons. If you understand this kind of editing as breaking Wikipedia´s rules, you shouldn´t. Rather I´m asking you for your assistance to improve my work in Wikipedia. Not every hint I received in the past was a useful help, making it not always transparent for me as a youg writer to differenciate between experienced advice or other. Please unblock my account and help me as a young Wikipedia editor staying motivated in this fantastic tool. Thanks. Kipepea (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Okay so I accept your are a grad student in Vienna. If you are writing about colleagues you should indicate this on your talk page. Also if it is part of your position to write overviews of researchers and their research this should also be indicated. If neither one of these is the case then my apologies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use thumbnails inside of infoboxes as you did to Siroos Mirzaei. Note that this is your second warning regarding this issue. Continuing to add thumbnails will be seen as disruptive editing. For more information please see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. When adding an image, instead of doing:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

You can simply supply the name of the image. So in this case just do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Kipepea. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See

Please read Help:Maintenance template removal. Do not remove the tag until the related issues have been addressed. If - and I am saying if - you believe that the tag was added because of your edits, you cannot be the one to remove it. I have no idea why the tag was placed but the section of the talk page you are referencing does not refer to the subject matter of the tag. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the User:Kipepea/Martin Parniske page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I went through and marked the pages listed there as UPE and have cc tagged their talk pages. Some more recent work here was not disclosed there but is in line with it, so i marked those too. Jytdog (talk) 09:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Doc James in the course of this I came across Jb4WIKIacc0 who is a SPA for Jürgen Brosius and like the sock/master, added refs to their works or name to another article like here, here, and others. also made a few really constructive/non-selfish edits like this.... sock or subject i wonder... Jytdog (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog Likely the subject themselves. This is a common pattern. Both the person hired and the person doing the hiring edit the Wikipedia article together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian. In high school, he was part of a jazz band called Three Blind Mice.) is plainly trivial.

[2] Including but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article.

[3] Lack of multiple sources suggests that the topic may be more suitable for inclusion in an article on a broader topic. It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. Similarly, a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source.

[4] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Questionable sources for handling of such situations.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]